Re: [patch 1/5] Extended crashkernel command line

[Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>]

* Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com> [2007-09-12 13:23]:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:01:10PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> > * Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com> [2007-09-11 08:15]:
> > > 
> > > "offset" seems to be optional in the new syntax. What happens if user does
> > > not specify offset. I think crash_base will be set to zero and system will
> > > try to reserve x amount of memory start at zero? That would fail?
> > 
> > That's handled in the architecture specific code -- because it's
> > different on each architecture and the architecture specific code does
> > memory reservation. IA64 already can handle this case (on IA64,
> > specifying 0 is the same than leaving out the base address, and that's
> > why I wanted to keep that semantics). I think it doesn't also make
> > sense on i386/x86_64 to choose 0 as real base address, because the
> > value below 1 MB is special for booting ...
> > 
> 
> Ok. I see IA64 is handling this case. But in current patchset, i386 and
> x86_64 will try to reserve memory starting at zero?  So we still got
> to handle this case in i386 and x86_64?

Yes, my fault. I need to replace

+       if (ret == 0 && crash_size > 0) {

with

+       if (ret == 0 && crash_size > 0 && crash_base > 0) {

I'll repost the whole patch with all the corrections when I finished
PPC64 and SH. (I'm not in office this week, that's why I'm a bit slow.)


Thanks,
   Bernhard
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/